The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1887-05-28
SATURDAY, MAY %, 1887.
The Boundary Question.

The attempt of the Kingwood
Journal to defend the action of the
Legislature of West Virginia with
reference to the boundary line be-
tween that State and Maryland, will
have tendency to convince the in
telligent readers of that paper that
its editor either knows nothing about
the questions involved in the dispute
between the two States, or that he
has not the candor or inclination to
discuss them fairly. The character
istic meanness underlying the editor
ial article referred to is shown in the
gratuit0us assertion that the Oakland
papers are are advocating the inter-
ests of land spectators. When our
readers take into consideration the
fact that this absurd fling was made
without the least prov0cation, they
will perhaps be able to comprehend
the motives which prompted the ed
itor to write such an article, as we'll
as the spirit in which it is published.
The "Fairfax Stone" was agreed
upon as the beginning of the lire in
controversy. This line is due north
line from said Fairfax Stone. This
is plain, simple and easily under
stood. There can be no difficulty in
locating due North line from the
Fairfax Stone Such line is the
true boundary, the Journal and the
West Virginia Legislature to the
contrary Notwithstanding. West
Virginia owns up to such line and
further she can not come. Maryland
owns up to that line. further she
does not desire to go. The people
living East of such a line are not and
never were citizens of West Virginia,
The State of West Virginia does not
and never did own a foot of land
East of that line, and if Virginia
granted lands east of that line to any,
body she undertook to grant that
which she did not own, and can
confer no title. In the face of these
rt.S.s - - <~la chat Uast Uir-
ginia will protect such bogas titles,
and that the line cannot be settled
unless Maryland will likewise con-
cede Virginia patent for Maryland
land to be valid!
Our objection to the act passed by
the West Virginia Legislature is that
1T does not settle anything, and we
do not believe it was intended to
settle anything. Maryland has not
sold foot of land she did not own,
and she would be willing to correct
such mistake if one had been made.
The Journal need not suppose that
Maryland will yield any part of her
territory, simply because the West
Virginia Legislature passes an act
asking for it, not even if such an act
be Mr.. Jones' bill.
We can assure the Journal that the
people of Garrett will resort to moth
ing but lawful means, but in this con-
nection we would inquire-where
were your boasted power and deter
mination to protect your citizens
when Marshall Reckard was, a few
days ago, convicted in the court of
this county for an offence committed
within the disputed territory? No
disposition was shown on that occa-
sion to protect one who claims TO be
a citizen of West Virginia. In the
face of such facts we must take such
declarations to be idle boasts and
nothing more.
We believe the controversy can
and will be settled according to the
right of the matter, but we are con-
WINGED that it must and will be done
without the aid or concurrence of
West Virginia.